Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:11, 4 January 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Hoboken train crash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2016 Hoboken train crash. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2016 Hoboken train crash at the Reference desk.

Death B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Start‑class

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in New York City / Operations Start‑class

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

Nominated for WP:ITN

This article has been nominated to be linked on the main page under the In the News section. However the general quality of the article including prose, level of detail and referencing may not currently meet the community's standards for linking om the main page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion of the nomination and or to help improve the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was closed as no consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRA audit underway before crash

NYTimes: N.J. Transit Was Under Investigation by FRA Before Fatal Crash, Federal Rail Official Says --Jeremyb (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's name the Engineer

I can see that at some point in the past, the name of the engineer was removed for some reason. (See hidden text below.) Now, the name of the engineer is present, and has continued to be present for a substantial time, seemingly without anybody raising an objection. Something has changed. What changed? I have an idea: Only now do they have an "innocent" explanation for the event. The engineer is said to have had undiagnosed sleep apnea. That innocent explanation takes a lot of the intentional onus for the accident out of the equation: The engineer may have caused the accident, but he didn't intend to do so. So nobody needs to protect him by concealing his name from the record. That explains why people objected to the presence of his name before, but they no longer do today. Am I getting warm? 174.25.50.88 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whole thing is riddled with BLP vios and aspersions. See WP:BLPREMOVE point number 2. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A few days ago, I added the name of the Engineer, <redacted>. It was deleted without any explanation. I hadn't SOURCED it, but to fail to do so merely means one of two things: If the identification was wrong, it should be corrected and sourced. If the identification was right, it should be sourced. To simply delete the name amounts to a malicious concealing of relevant, accurate facts. The fact that somebody would intentionally remove the name, without sourcing or correct it, strongly implies that somebody is attempt to protect the guilty. That's one major problem with Wikipedia: People's self-interest gets in the way of accurate documentation. (or conflicts of interest, where people are paid by others to edit.) I will again enter the name, and let somebody else add the source which I will write on the Talk page http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/29/thomas-gallagher-new-jersey-train-crash-engineer-c/ : Everybody should pay attention if anybody tries to remove it again. 67.5.243.74 (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my comment above. The person who deleted it falsely claimed that I had said somebody was "guilty" of something. Quite differently, I pointed out that the manner that the prior identification was removed IMPLIES (quote) that "somebody is attempt[ing] to protect the guilty". Mine was an accurate assessment of the motivations of the deleter, not an assessment of the guilt of the engineer himself. The fact that the deleter didn't even bother to add a comment to this Talk page is a sad, guilty statement of how anonymous people editing Wikipedia manipulate the record for secret, undisclosed reasons. They should be ashamed. 67.5.243.74 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've identified Editor WWGB as the (ir)responsible party who deleted the identification of <redacted> as the Engineer of the train. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Hoboken_train_crash&type=revision&diff=741842735&oldid=741842522 Rather than merely source it, or correct it if WWGB thought it wrong, it is clear that WWGB was trying to conceal the name of the Engineer, who was obviously correctly identified. 67.5.243.74 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Malicious", "self-interest", "irresponsible"? Feisty words from an IP editor who cannot even form a simple citation. S/he might also care to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to name the engineer unless they're listed as being at fault in the investigation. It adds undue weight to imply fault when none has yet been assigned. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At fault or not, I see no good reason to name the engineer. I would also lean towards not naming the victim either. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naming victims of incidents, once the names have been released by official sources, is less problematic under BLP and UNDUE. I don't see a really compelling reason to remove the victim's name from the article, but I could be convinced otherwise. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today's NBC Nightly News just reported that in the minute before the collision, the engineer accelerated the train from 8 to 21 mph, then set the engine in neutral and applied the emergency brake. (Redacted) 71.222.37.253 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught editor WWGB deleting my comment immediately above, claiming "opinionated, unsubstantiated attack on a known person". First, I am not aware of any rule prohibiting stating opinions on the Talk page. Further, calling it "unsubstantiated" to refer to a national news media news report is certainly an odd thing to do. (Redacted) ABC news reports (and other sources) report that 38 seconds before the collision, the speed of the train was changed from 8 to 21 mph, and the brake was put on 1 second before the collision, far too late to do any good. Who, exactly, is editor WWGB attempting to protect? Does he think it's proper to erase other people's comments on the TALK page of an article? 71.222.37.253 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued the following complaint about user WWGB on the WP:ANI Noticeboard, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WWGB_vandalism_at_article_2016_Hoboken_Train I encourage everyone to do a Google-search for 'Hoboken 38 seconds' to see that the news media is heavily reporting that 38 seconds before the crash, the speed of the train was deliberately accelerated from 8 to 21 mph, and the brake was activated a mere 1 second before the collision. (Redacted) 71.222.37.253 (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted personal attacks and BLP violations EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes in speed of the train will undoubtably be of interest in the investigation, but could be triggered by many factors, including electro-mechanical faults and failures. Conclusions should not be made from those facts alone, and especially not something which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see WP:BLPREMOVE). Murph9000 (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NTSB photos

The NTSB has a selection of photos on their flickr page. I'm uploading some to Commons, and others can be added as needed. Most of the photos are by NTSB employees and (despite the flickr license) public domain by commons:Template:PD-USGov-NTSB. However, some are by NJT employees and are not public domain. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

belongings

http://www.northjersey.com/news/passengers-from-hoboken-train-that-crashed-can-claim-belongings-today-1.1674492 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wife didn't know about his sleep apnea?!?

WTF? Am I the only one who sees this? The article currently implies that the problem was undiagnosed sleep apnea. That might actually be plausible, except that this train driver had a wife. Their sleeping arrangements are not specified in any article I've seen, but it would be hard to imagine that the wife was unaware of the husband's sleep apnea. And, she would certainly have told hubby. Merely calling it "undiagnosed sleep apnea" misleads, suggesting that he is merely an innocent victim of medical reality, rather than being a person who continued to engage in a very dangerous practice of controlling a train despite knowledge of his continuing sleep apnea. A search for articles which address this matter is called for. 174.25.28.202 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a valid line of reasoning in the Talk page that could spur the addition of useful references. If somebody doesn't like it, they should explain in detail on the Talk page why this is a problem. It isn't. 67.5.233.63 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:09, 4 January 2017 edit 67.5.233.63 (talk) Undid revision 757513584 by Malerooster (talk) Improper to remove productive discussion supporting this article. There was no BLP violation. Nobody was named. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:11, 4 January 2017 edit undo 67.5.233.63 (talk) →‎Wife didn't know about his sleep apnea?!? Next edit →
Line 57:		Line 57:

	WTF? Am I the only one who sees this? The article currently implies that the problem was undiagnosed sleep apnea. That might actually be plausible, except that this train driver had a wife. Their sleeping arrangements are not specified in any article I've seen, but it would be hard to imagine that the wife was unaware of the husband's sleep apnea. And, she would certainly have told hubby. Merely calling it "undiagnosed sleep apnea" misleads, suggesting that he is merely an innocent victim of medical reality, rather than being a person who continued to engage in a very dangerous practice of controlling a train despite knowledge of his continuing sleep apnea. A search for articles which address this matter is called for. [[Special:Contributions/174.25.28.202\|174.25.28.202]] ([[User talk:174.25.28.202\|talk]]) 02:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)		WTF? Am I the only one who sees this? The article currently implies that the problem was undiagnosed sleep apnea. That might actually be plausible, except that this train driver had a wife. Their sleeping arrangements are not specified in any article I've seen, but it would be hard to imagine that the wife was unaware of the husband's sleep apnea. And, she would certainly have told hubby. Merely calling it "undiagnosed sleep apnea" misleads, suggesting that he is merely an innocent victim of medical reality, rather than being a person who continued to engage in a very dangerous practice of controlling a train despite knowledge of his continuing sleep apnea. A search for articles which address this matter is called for. [[Special:Contributions/174.25.28.202\|174.25.28.202]] ([[User talk:174.25.28.202\|talk]]) 02:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
			:This sounds like a valid line of reasoning in the Talk page that could spur the addition of useful references. If somebody doesn't like it, they should explain in detail on the Talk page why this is a problem. It isn't. [[Special:Contributions/67.5.233.63\|67.5.233.63]] ([[User talk:67.5.233.63\|talk]]) 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)